Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Motorcycle deaths flavour of the month

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by smee, Nov 2, 2010.

  1. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...n-record-numbers/story-e6frf7kx-1225946533114


  2. What a crock of prejudice and assumption..
  3. So all car drivers have to do is "keep an eye out for them".....Where's the stats on the other 5 fatalities? and where is the data about the large increase of motorcycle registrations year on year?
  4. This is not sobering, it's disturbing that the a*seholes keep this shyte going.

    Yes its tragic that people have died using the roads. It's sad and devastating for the families and friends of those that have died.

    But lets put it in some perspective.

    11 killed in one month, the most in 20 years. But how many riders were there 20 years ago?

    I am so sick and tired of this statisical crap. Show us the raw data and relate it to the actual numbers of people riding bikes. My bet, and it's a safe bet, is that the number of deaths compared to the number of riders has in fact gone down, which is a positive not a negative.

    Oh, and there's that bloody word "vulnerable" again.
  5. Which bit Phizog? The relatively even-handed message from the TAC spokesman telling motorcyclists they should be more aware and car drivers to keep a look out, or the Adelaide article that focused on the elderly couple who lost control of their vehicle for 1km?

    I'm kinda understanding the focus on motorcyclists at the moment. I don't like it, but hell, the stats are pretty friggin' shocking.
  6. How do the stats show riders 'may' have caused the fatalities. Even then, the other half were not disputed that it wasn't rider error, according to their phrasing.

    This is only relevant if you're assuming riders will naturally hoon about unless they have a sense of mortality.
  7. TACs spokesman John Thompson said the statistics prove there are some motorcyclists who continue to put themselves and other road users at risk.
    "There are some motorcyclists who fail to understand how vulnerable they are, and when travelling at speed in a collision they will always come off second best, regardless of who is at fault,''
    Thompson said. "Similarly, car drivers need to be aware that motorcyclists are legitimate road users and they need to keep an eye out for them.''

    In my biased opinion, the bolded bit should be making up the bulk of that paragraph, and the 'some motorcyclists are idiots' should be the tacked-on afterthought :\.

    But at least he did admit we "are legitimate road users".
  8. It also states motorcycles are 3% of road users but 20% of TAC Claim costs.

    How long until they bump up the TAC Premium ??
  9. As I said in another thread, NSW already has bumped up the CTP for certain classes of motorcycles.
  10. You have to remember how the TAC and VicPol determine whether a rider contributed to a crash.

    If they feel that your lane position made it more difficult for cars to see you - even if you have right of way - then you contributed to the crash.

    If they feel that you did not take appropriate evasive action, either to brake, or swerve - even if you have right of way - then you contributed to the crash.

    If they feel that you were travelling too fast to react to a hazard - even if you were well below the speed limit, or the speed advisory for the area - then you contributed to the crash.

    Given those criteria, I'm not surprised at all that they usually come up with a statistic of 70% of crashes involving rider error.

    And for those of you who think I'm making this up, you should read some of the reports on motorcycle crashes that VicRoads or TAC commission.

  11. Actually, given the logic above, 100% of crashes involve rider error.
  12. Stop crashing for a while, that'll calm them down.
  13. Kinda makes me wonder if that's their motivation for discouraging motorcycling -- when a biker needs to claim, it generally costs the TAC much more. They're not a private business though, so that's less likely. But, on the other hand, the more 'efficient' they are, the more there is to spend on other stuff, and the better the chances of promotion for those considered responsible.

  14. I thought the latest stats were that motorcyclists were the at fault party for 70% of the accidents? Not contributing errors etc, but overall?
  15. See zen's post:

    Given those criteria, I'm dubious towards any statistic they come up with regarding fault of motorcyclists :?.
  16. Noo..

    If your in correct lane position and take evasive action and your driving below the appropriate speed conditions at the time, then your not at fault?
  17. The Herald Sun acts as little more than a paid mouth-piece for the TAC due to advertising funding. The TAC is running at a loss. Modern politics makes mountains out of every molehole (not saying that someone dying is insignificant, am talking about relative statistical variations). Yes, Victorian riders seem to be having a bad year this year. I don't know why exactly, but I do know that the riding population hasn't suddenly changed. It's just a bad set of circumstances.

    I read the Hun comments sections. People are idiots. Every fool has a theory on why these accidents occurred: "Lane Splitting" seems to come up most prominently, even though very, very, few accidents occur in this way. All that is evident to me is that the average driver is frustrated with traffic queues, pissed off with motorcycles able to make better progress, and goddammit those f*ckers deserve to die for that!!! While we're at it though, bad them nasty biker f*ckers too!!

    F*cking tools. Modern society and politics pissed me off. Complacent sheep baahing and spitting at anything that's different. I gave up weeping for modern society a while back.
  18. I did not say at fault, I said rider error was involved, there's a difference.

    There are very very few incidents where a rider hasn't contributed to an incident in some way.

    You can be in the technically correct lane position, take evasive action and be below the appropriate speed, but potentially had you been more aware of your surroundings you wouldn't have been there in the first place.

    Or, lets say you come to an intersection. You have right of way, you are travelling at an appropriate speed, but you don't notice the idiot who isn't slowing down and he cleans you up. Sure, you're not at fault and legally your where in the right. But because you weren't paying attention to what was going on you contributed to the accident. Had you seen the car and either slowed down or even sped up, the accident wouldn't have happened and it would have been written up here as a "Near Miss".
  19. Who cares? You are dead anyway numpty. Doesn't matter who's at fault.
  20. Well I'm sure all of those things do CONTRIBUTE to a crash - though not necessarily placing the rider primarily at fault. But Zenali, are you saying the same rules don't apply to cagers?